Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Airlines fleet (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. I am myself conflicted as to whether this article deserves inclusion. I would be inclined to say no, as none of the aircraft listed are in and of themselves notable, but I'll leave that discussion up to another AfD debate. No prejudice against a new AfD in the future. — Verrai 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This has been covered and discussed on various avenues over months/years, including a previous Afd and once again it is being put up for WP:NOT and WP:N. The majority of the keep arguments in the last Afd were a combination of WP:LOSE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BHTT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ALLORNOTHING, whereas the delete were mainly based around WP:NOT and WP:N. The prose in the lead of this article is already in Singapore Airlines, as is the current and historical fleet (small tables). The last section is a WP:TRIVIA section, and the massive table is not encyclopaedic, against WP:NOT, and as notability is not inherited, it also fails WP:N, as the fleet is not notable without being related to the airline operating it. There is no merging to be done. One argument which may come up is that the main article is already long enough, although these main articles in a lot of places go against WP:ADVERT and against Airline Project guidelines. Russavia 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NOT and WP:N, with very similar WP:ADVERT problems in main article:
 * --Russavia 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * --Russavia 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete So what you're saying is that the "keep" arguments in the last nom was basically everything listed in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? I'd have to say delete per nom, nothing more to be said here.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to that the fact that an Encyclopedia doesn't explain every little tiny detail regarding that subject. Plus, some information is just useless and I don't see why anyone would want to use them.  I supported a merge, however now I do agree, they should be deleted NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.--Golich17 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see the article describing variations in the length of wiring, the cabin air temperature, or the number of microbes in the carpeting in each aircraft, so just what "little tiny detail" is this article gulty of displaying? I have observed this article actually being used as a reference by users in two aviation forums when discussing fleet development and airframe movements between airlines (it is even a hobby for some to track who buys SIA's second hand aircraft). This list is not useless to them just because you arent interested.--Huaiwei 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Full details on past discussions can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Singapore_Airlines_fleet&oldid=38008579, which Russavia conveniently overwrote without adhering to proper nomination procedures. My past reasoning for keeping this article remains relevant. And to add to those comments, this article has evolved beyond merely a list of aircraft. It actually has the scope the discuss in greater detail much aspects of the SIA fleet. Arguments that "information here already exists in the main article" is only true because of my delibrate attempt in reproducing detail in both articles to ensure speedy portability to the other article as and when required (the information I recently added to the Singapore Airlines article can be moved over to this article when the former is deemed too large, which it already is anyway). It has to be reiterated that this is still primarily a helper article, not unlike all articles in Category:Airline destinations, Airline codes, etc. Normal criteria in deeming encyclopedic content should not apply to the last criterion here.--Huaiwei 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom... as unencyclopedic. Huaiwei, in agreement with NascarFan24, is simply trying to avoid the deletion of the article by elaborating himself very much so to the point where people believe that the information is useful, just because someone who wrote an extremely long explanation said so.--Golich17 00:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You have voted twice. Kindly add additional comments to your original comment, and strike this one out.--Huaiwei 06:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and that Afd is supposed to be decided upon policy and concensus, not on a list of votes. --Russavia 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, why is there a need to vote twice?--Huaiwei 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Dublicate vote struck out.--Huaiwei 09:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Singapore Airlines where the airline's fleet is already adequately covered. The thing we then "lose" will be the entire fleet list of individual aircraft, but that list is fairly dynamic, subject to change every time a lease expires, a nightmare to keep up to date (websites devoted to tracking individual aircraft in a fleet are unable to do keep them up to date, and have a "lag time"), and the registrations the planes fly around with has no great impact on the industry. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Fleet changes in this article has not been as dynamic as to actually pose problems for editors maintaining it. In fact, it has often been updated faster than the SIA website, so I don't see any problem of "lag time" here. Obviously registration numers of aircraft dont make a great impact in the industry, but no one is clamouring to write individual articles for each individual aircraft, or are we?--Huaiwei 02:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletions.   --Huaiwei 06:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is interesting to note that several delete arguments are just as guilty as what was brought up by the nominator. Also, perhaps you may want to elaborate on why the article is not notable. I may want to note that these articles are lists, not full-fledged articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletions.   --Huaiwei 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletions.   --Huaiwei 12:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions.  --Russavia 13:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maintaining a list of each individual aircraft is not especially interesting to the general public, and there are specialist sites such as airlinerlist.com that already provide this information. I feel it is sufficient to give a summary of the fleet and this doesn't need its own article. American Airlines looks about right to me. I don't think we should list individual tail numbers as seen on Singapore Airlines--while it may work for relatively small airlines, we'd be left with an unreadable mess if we tried to enumerate all 299 MD-80s operated by American, for instance. -- Hawaiian717 16:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thousands of WP articles are not interesting to the general public. See the articles on minor footballers and video games.Archtransit 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a few flawed arguments there, including the one Archtransit points out above. The existance of this one article dosent mean you have to have one for all airline articles in wikipedia. Some airlines are known to personalise each of their individual aircraft, for example Virgin Atlantic, so there is more notability in having an article on the Virgin Atlantic fleet than a British Airways one, despite the later being larger in size.--Huaiwei 01:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is potentially useful information if one wants to track a specific aircraft, e.g. date of service entry, etc. The article has potential to be improved to be more of an article and less of a list.  For example, there's no discussion about how SQ was convinced to get rid of it's new A340 in favor of 777 even though both served similar tasks and most airlines don't replace aircraft like this (for example, replacing 737NG with A320 or vice versa).  There's also the MD-11 saga that could be mentioned in the fleet article.  Part of the decision depends on what we want Wikipedia to be.  Should it be a general summary and leave out detailed information?  WP:PRODUCT allows a separate article if the main article of a company is too long.  The SQ article is long!  Most importantly, WP:NNC dictates that an article should be kept if the TOPIC is suitable, not an indication of the contents of the article.  The fleet appears to be suitable as an article (with improvement with more text added).  As a result, I believe this is a keep. Archtransit 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - I have some good ideas for a fleet article and it's just not a list. I can see how people are opposed to this article if it's only a list.  If this article remains, I'm happy to work on it.  If the article is killed (votes are looking bad), why waste valuable time working on a dead article? Archtransit 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am actually considering splitting the article further down, such that the lists are moved to list articles, while the main Singapore Airlines fleet article becomes one which primarily discusses on the fleet itself, an expanded version of the Singapore Airlines section. I would be curious to know what your proposed overhaul will look like, for we may be thinking of something similar.--Huaiwei 01:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NNC does not directly limit article content, however, WP:N itself does dictate whether the article itself is worthy for WP or not. Fleet lists of Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways International (remember, all 3 articles are included in this Afd) are not notable, as notability is not inherited. Additionally, I do not believe that article length of the main airline article can be a justifiable reason to keep any of these fleet articles, as the main airline articles are full of WP:CRUFT (codeshare destinations, flight numbers, extensive promo on FFP, and other advertisting), and I am not the only editor who has this opinion on these articles. --Russavia 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While informative, I'm not convinced that keeping tail numbers and dates of service for specific aircraft is encyclopedic.  Keeping a summary table by aircraft type is clearly encyclopedic and those sections should remain in articles.  They should be allowed to be split off if they become too large.  This is an encyclopedia and there are sites whose sole purpose is to track the individual history of specific aircraft. I fail to see how spending our time duplicating dedicated databases query system results with manually updated information that is difficult to verify without using those databases is where we should be going. Discussions about specific business decisions can be included in the article. Vegaswikian 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment lists exist in wikipedia for a reason, and are not subjected to the same criteria in determining their encyclopedic merit. This list is not any less encyclopedic as Singapore Airlines destinations, the range of articles which you yourself have been struggling to maintain previously. If there is room for "specific business decisions" in this article, than you could have assisted to overhaul the article instead of supporting its outright deletion.--Huaiwei 02:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe Vegaswikian meant that discussions can occur in the main article? He can correct me if I am wrong, as that is how I read his comment. As to criteria in determining a lists encyclopaedic merit, WP:V is still a policy which even lists needs to adhere to, and this is one of the reasons why the 3 articles have been nominated, in that the fleets on their own to not satisfy WP:N or WP:V, due to the fact that the actual fleets have never been written about extensively by reliable sources without relying on their relationship with their companies, and as we know, notability is not inherited. --Russavia 02:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I know perfectly what Vegaswikian meant, while I am having problems understanding what you are trying to say. You constantly cite WP:N and WP:V as reasons for deleting these articles, without actually saying why other than stuffing us with WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSA, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:WHOCARES, WP:USELESS, WP:NOTINTERESTING comments. Do you have any evidence that "actual fleets have never been written about extensively by reliable sources"? I have seen independent scholarly books on Singapore Airlines with an entire chapter dedicated to their fleets. There are endless independent articles out there discussing on aircraft fleets, purchases, and movements. Aircraft purchases frequently make headlines. Just about every aircraft purchase by SIA in its entire history has been reported in the local newspapers, and I believe this is also true for most major airlines around the world. I am again rather surprised that someone of your proclaimed exertise in the aviation field could make such a declaration at this time.--Huaiwei 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That is not the way that Afds work Huaiwei, I have made a statement (whether that is right or wrong) that the fleets are not notable, and have based this statement on policy. It is your job as an editor (the main editor of the Singapore Airlines fleet I believe) to demonstrate notability by providing these reliable sources. If there are scholarly books which deal with this subject why aren't they cited in the main article, because the only sources referenced in the SIA article are 1 Singapore Airlines source, 2 aircraft manufacturer sources and 2 hobbyist sites (which whilst perhaps used within airline hobby circles would be pushing the envelope for being reliable sources), and even then none of the referenced sources are anything more than directory-type listings, which is perhaps against WP:NOT. --Russavia 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is not particular reason to delete this material. If it proves out that it is not kept up to date, that would be the time to AfD it. Other databases may come and go. Just as in the various rail, water transport, car, military aircraft, music, game, video, movie pages, there is *fan* interest in this kind of thing. It seems to me that there is a kind of risk of elitist POV in going after these classes of subject matter. In part WP is an encyclopedia of recreational and hobby interests. In this case there is overlap among various kinds of interest. In my past life I would have loved to have had access to a good discussion of the buying practices of SIA, Lufthansa, United, JAL, AAL, DAL and other airlines. If folks are willing to lovingly compile such info and put low-valued added fee-charging databases out of business, so be it. This is an article that could stand more depth, to be obtained from the large specialized periodical literature in this field. As to size of table display problems, having big tables may lead to more thought about HOW to present big tables. If there is to be some kind of WMF cost-reduction effort that should be made part of WP policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) 14:36, 9 October 2007
 * Keep I couln't find any information in this article is not encyclopedic. There is no wrong putting this article here as it provides information on SIA aircraft details Marcusaffleck 06:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Archtransit. I agree with his view that a good amount of potential could be added to the article with tons of verifiable sources and make it much more encyclopedic. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.